by Dave DeMars
news@thenewsleaders.com
The Sauk Rapids City Council had little in the way of business to take care of and proceeded quickly to the open hearing concerning the 2017 Second Avenue South Feasibility Study. The open hearing was to receive input as to how the street improvement project would be paid for and what kinds of improvements would be made.
The study was the work of Short, Elliot, Hendrickson Inc. City engineer Terrence Wotzka led the council through a brief summary of what the project would cost and look like.
Proposed improvements
Information contained in the Feasibility Study yielded the following information: The streets to be improved included First, Second, Third and Fourth Avenues S., and Sixth Street S. Those streets would be improved between Second and Fourth Avenues S.
Improvements will include the widening of some streets, the inclusion of curb and gutter as well as sidewalks, replacement of sanitary sewer and water mains, upgrading storm sewers, and improving lighting and landscaping on the streets.
Costs for Improvements
Total cost for all improvements is estimated at $2.86 million with Second Avenue S. and First Street S. bearing the lions share of the cost at $2 million. City assessment policy for street reconstruction, curb and gutter construction states lots adjacent to the reconstructed street be assessed at 25 percent of the street cost. Lighting and streetscaping costs will be assessed at 50 percent of cost. Costs for storm sewer is 22 cents per square foot of property,
Cost breakout looks to be $670,000 in assessments to property owners, $650,000 to be picked up by the city, and $1.5 million to be picked up through state aid.
Wotzka pointed out city policy is not to assess for sanitary sewer and water-main installation.
Citizen reaction
Several citizens attended the public hearing to question the cost of the project and to voice some disapproval. First to address the council was Dan Ehlert, owner of property at 100 Second Ave. S. Ehlert recalled about eight years ago, the city improved First Street S. for which he was assessed some $15,000. Now he is being assessed $16,600 for work the city will do in front of his building.
“I don’t have so much a concern on that as on the lighting,” Ehlert said. “Why is the owner being assessed 50 percent of the lighting when that benefits everybody in the city as well as everybody else using it? That seems extremely high to me when the roadway is assessed at 25 percent.
Wotzka said some years ago, the city adopted a plan which called for decorative lighting and the 50-percent level was chosen when the policy was put into place. He added the estimate of $7,500 per pole was likely high.
Ehlert replied the last time when the city estimated lighting on First Street S., they came in 25 percent over the estimate.
“If I were building something else and someone were 25-percent off on the estimate, that would concern me,” Ehlert said.
Ehlert asked how long the project would take and learned the time frame was May 2017 to October 2017.
Jerry Plachecki who lives on Sixth Street S. also voiced concern about the cost of the project and its benefit to him. Some two years ago, he said he was assessed for work done on the cul-de-sac on his street and he derived no benefit from it. Now the council is again going to assess him and he said he felt he would derive no benefit from the improvements made. Additionally, because he lived on a fixed income, it would be a hardship to try and pay the $9,260 assessment in only five years. He asked the council consider spreading the cost over 10 to 15 years.
City Administrator Ross Olson asked Plachecki to call him because he thought there were programs and ways that would help Plachecki to be able to handle the cost of the assessments.
Todd Micheau who lives on Fourth Street S. also addressed the council citing the lack of any benefit to his property. Micheau said his property is worth $80,000 and that he is being assessed some $19,700. The only company that will benefit from the improvements is the bus company since they stop in front of his property.
“Over five years, it will be $695 out of my pocket every month,” Micheau said. ” live paycheck to paycheck with two kids.”
He said he figures the whole venture is a lose-lose from his perspective.
Wotzka replied after looking at Micheau’s property, he saw some 60 feet of the property was not able to be developed because of a stream cutting across the lot. Wotzka said he figured half of the storm-sewer cost would not be levied and that would lower the assessment to around $8,200.
Frank Schwagel who owns a service station on Second Avenue S. expressed concern about the amount of time the project would take. When Benton Drive was improved he said his business suffered. At one time he was completely shut down because of construction. He was concerned this would be another year of business loss because of construction in the area. He said it seemed to him the whole end of town has been under construction for the past eight or 10 years. He asked for a reduction in assessment and to find a way to speed up construction in the area so his business would not suffer quite so much.
Wotzka said they would work with Schwagel to try and minimize disruption to the business and address some of the other concerns Schwagel had.
Gary Haller who occupies the property at the corner of Third Avenue and Sixth Street S. was the last citizen to address the council. With 135 feet of assessable property and $13,000 in assessments, Haller said he felt he was being assessed twice for storm-sewer work that was done in previous years on Benton Drive.
Wotzka replied that was not the case. No one was assessed for that storm-sewer work. Wotzka said he sympathized with the concern about storm-sewer assessments but said the storm water gets carried away through the storm drain and that has to be paid for.
“The problem is we have so much need and not enough money,” Wotzka said.
With the public hearing concluded, a motion to approve the resolution authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications was passed by the council and the project will move on to the next step of planning.
City Engineer Terry Wotzka answers a question posed by one of six citizens who addressed the council about the costs of proposed street improvements in and around Second Avenue S. near the Coborn Superstore.
Dan Ehlert addresses the Sauk Rapids City Council with questions as to why assessments for lighting that will be placed near his office building was pegged at 50 percent while street improvement was assessed at only 25 percent.
